Friday, June 02, 2006

A Convenient Marketing Truth

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a model of modern marketing case study in the making according to Rohit Bhargava of Influential Interactive Marketing. He breaks down his reasons for the eadvocacy campaign's success to come: :::[The Marketing of "An Inconvenient Truth"]
  1. The online pledge
  2. The parter email outreach
  3. High impact online advertising
  4. The personal and custom content
  5. Email reminders
I am happy to promote the documentary:



And there are thousands of us. All it takes to turn a documentary viewer into a candidate for Bhargava's eadvocacy is the dropping of a simple link to :::[http://www.climatecrisis.net/] in a comments section, or even the reader's own blog.

The first weekend box office results are in:

The final box office for the 4-day Memorial Day weekend was $367,311 in only four theaters in New York and Los Angeles. The per screen average was a record-breaking $91,827. Total box office to date in the first 6 days is $490,860.

An Inconvenient Truth expands in New York and Los Angeles this Friday (6/2) and opens in select theaters in Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Toronto and Washington D.C.

So if any of you live in any of the above cities get onto the climatecrisis.net website where you can pledge to be at the opening.

Other blogs on: , , , ,

2 comments:

Steven Joseph Christopher said...

This very important message was written with the intent that it would be passed around, forwarded to other recipients, generating a worldwide revolution into believing in the reality that there is:

1) Glass in the sky,

2) The fact that the whole universe is inverted and fits within the walls of a hollow, inverted earth, where earth is just a shell in which we live on the inside surface, and

3) God and heaven are physically situated up in the middle of this inverted world, and once this reality becomes prevalent, the whole world will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as prophesied by Habakkuk.

Steven Joseph Christopher
http://www.geocities.com/stevec15317/_heaven_centered_earth.html




Most Christian Fundamentals don't believe in global warming, but even liberals fail to understand why it's happening.

With the debut of Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", I bring you an even more inconvenient truth to swallow....

How silly of Mr. Gore...
To actually propose such an idea, that the earth is warming?and to use the old greenhouse analogy, as if there were a gigantic bubble of glass covering the entire globe.

No sir, the only way I would ever believe him (that there is global warming) is if, and only if he could actually PROVE beyond any shadow of any doubt, that there is actually real glass up in the sky.

Ha-ha, but he?d have an uphill battle. Let me tell you.

I mean first off, he?d have to prove that rainbows were a result of the white light from the sun, filtering through a glass plane and projecting onto cloud vapors in the air.

He?d have to debunk the accepted explanation that there are billions and billions of tiny raindrops in the air, which individually produce the complete spectrum of colors. And the notion that these raindrops are not SMART raindrops, which cannot synchronously align themselves together to form a perfectly arced bow. - How absurd. We all know that these drops are smart.

I mean these intelligent raindrops are everywhere, even in garden hose spray and water bottle mist.

He?d have to deduct that these raindrops did not have choreographic intellect and that the real reason the rainbows formed on these surfaces were because the sunlight was already filtered by the glass way up high at the top of the sky.

He?d have to compare these surface or vapors, as merely reflective projection screens.

Well, come to think of it, it DOES makes sense, kind of.

He?d also have to attribute all the aurora phenomena to glass in the sky. You know, the beautiful imagery in the northern and southern polar regions. He?d have to say that the electrons from the sun were hitting the glass and causing it to glow, just like a TV screen glows when electrons hit the phosphorus coated glass. He?d also have to prove that there was phosphorus in the atmosphere. Oh, wait a minute, there is, and that's how scientists explain why auroras happen, they even use the glass TV screen as an analogy.

Ok, but he?d have a hard time explaining ham radio waves if there were glass in the sky. I mean how are the short waves going to bounce off the ionosphere if there was a layer of glass in the sky?

Err, wait a minute. Actually ham radio waves reaching the other side of earth ARE compared to waves bouncing off the ionosphere as if it were a sheet of glass. Glass deflects radio waves.

Ok, ok, now if there was really glass up in the sky then how could he explain where tektites came from. If you all don?t know what tektites are, they are little globules of almost pure silica (glass). They are found in strewn fields in Australia, Georgia and a few other isolated regions of the world. To this day no scientist has conclusively, without any shadow of any doubt, proven their true origin?some say terrestrial, a result of a meteorite slamming into the ground and penetrating deep into the sedimentary layers of the earth with high velocity and extremely high temperature, and causing ?instant? liquefying of sedimentary glass (obsidian) and squirting this glass out from beneath the ground and propelling it WAY high up into the air?miles high. All the while cooling off as it makes it decent to the ground. Yeah right?(physics deem this stunt truly impossible)...some say extra-terrestrial?. maybe from the moon or a planet far, far away. But the chances of the moon propelling a few tektites earth's way are very slim, as well as having ZERO similarities to moon rock, as well as the tektite having NO cosmic rays exposure. (This would mean that it is not from space)

No, Al Gore would have to say something like a meteor skidded across the glass up in the sky and caused it to get really hot and melt and drop down globules?well I guess this wouldn?t be as hard an explanation as I originally thought.

Okay, but big Al would have to explain why fusion crust (the glass coating on meteorites) was not possible to create on terrestrial rock by heating it to the same temperature as the meteor entering the atmosphere?. uh?wait a minute, I guess WE?D have to explain this, not Al. Why would glass form on the meterorite ONLY if it came through the atmosphere and not by just heating one up on the ground?

All right, what about a comet?s tail. He?d have to trash the solar wind explanation in lieu of his glass idea. He?d have to say that the tail of the comet was curved and always facing the opposite of the sun because of the optical distortion effect called ?coma aberration?, caused only by light filtering through a bowed glass lens, actually NAMED for the similarity of the comet?s tail.

Ugh... I guess WE?RE in the hot seat on this one too.

All right, all right, I?m not down for the count yet.

Ozone

Let the OZONE man himself; prove that there is glass up in the sky by explaining how ozone is present in the atmosphere, if there is glass up in the sky.

HEE - HEE I can SMELL my victory now!

Oh ? no, wait a minute. Ozone generators and air ionizers (only the ones with glass plates) produce ozone and cause it to smell like the fresh scent after a thunderstorm. So the glass screening the ultraviolet light causes ozone. So we can actually SMELL the glass in the sky.

RATZ!

Ok, but Al, come on really, how would the Space Shuttle and all those satellites have penetrated this fictitious glass barrier?

I mean you?d have to penetrate this glass by easing into it, you know at a really acute angle and you?d have to go really, really fast to get enough temperature to melt the glass. Also, it wouldn?t be a bad idea to coat all the tiles with a special dichroic glass that would have very little thermal conductivity and have it powdery, like sand paper, creating more friction?.

DARN! He got me again, that's EXACTLY what is on the shuttle's tiles, they call it FRIT.

All right, if there really WAS glass in the sky, why don?t we see a reflection of the earth up in the sky? I mean you?d have to say that there was some kind of non-reflective material coating the glass ? like a non-transparent sheet of ice, one that is translucent, blocking a good potion of the sunlight from entering.

But, come to think of it that would explain all the mysterious huge chunks of ice that have fallen to the ground. Most recently in Oakland, CA this April.

Ok, what about stellar spectroscopy? RATZ, glass would explain it better?

What about red shift only visible from beneath earth?s atmosphere ? DARN, glass explains it better.

What about halos, circumzenith arcs, glories, superior mirages, fata morganas????

SHOOT! Glass in the sky explains ALL these things perfectly.

Uh moderators!

Never mind, can I erase my posting here? I?m new here and don?t want to be ridiculed by the fact that AL Gore beat me in proving that there is glass up in the sky. And also proving that there is global warming.

I mean we all know why he can?t be president?.

...because of the glass ceiling.

(EVEN CHILDREN KNOW THIS IS WHY THERE ARE RAINBOWS IN THE SKY)

Vincenze said...

Hi God, it's been a while.